tv [untitled] September 17, 2011 10:30pm-11:00pm PDT
you say today was "delay," which in lay terms could mean a continuance, so i wanted to understand because you are not represented by counsel. do you want to have your matter heard today, or do you want to come back in two weeks? and why would you want to do that? >> i -- commissioner hwang: so you can stay in business? >> yes, stay in business, but we are looking for another place. we are actively looking for real-estate brokers. commissioner hwang: thank you. commissioner goh: so i think we should call public comment on the issue of the continuance? does that make sense, director? director goldstein: i am just
concerned that we would have public comment twice. whether the city attorney -- >> a motion to continue the case? if you are concerned taking that action, then you need public comment on that action before you take it. vice president garcia: or if there is no motion to continue, then we do not need -- director goldstein: i wonder if we want to give the city attorney -- vice president garcia: and would he feel the need to do that if there was no motion to continue? >> if there is no motion to continue, i would not make a motion opposing it. >> ok. commissioner goh: ok. it was my understanding that,
vice president garcia, you ask a question of the appellant, to make a motion for a continuance, and then commissioner hwang clear 5 what "continuance -- commissioner hwang talked about what a "continuance" means in this context. vice president garcia: to clarify my confession -- to clarify, whether this has more to do with delaying the suspension than try to have additional time and to hire an attorney, so i feel a motion to continue is unnecessary. commissioner goh: in that case, we can call public comment on the substance.
director goldstein: are there any members of the public who wish to make comment on this, and if so, please step forward? commissioner goh: i see other people approaching. are there other people who want to speak in public comment on this item? go ahead. >> my name is kathleen maxmara, and there were 13 letters -- i am kathleen mcnamara. smoking hooka, it permeates our building. even leaving the windows open year round is not feasible and does little to negate the impact. a tenant on the second floor of our building has already had two
bouts of cancer and told me last week that he is scared of having a recurrence because of breathing this in. one woman gets out on her walker, and she is also concerned. there was a letter i submitted to our fellow tenants to submit, but, unfortunately, they could not make it here in person today. there is also the excessive noise, black music, in general disturbance of the peace. -- excessive noise, loud music, and general disturbance of the peace. they spill out onto the sidewalk and block the sidewalk as well as the entrance to our building. one attendant told me that he was sucker punched upon trying to enter the building. several state tenants told us
that they have been called -- several gay tenants told us that they have been called gay slurs. i have called sfpuc many times, as have others, but nothing seems to get done. they are intoxicated, rude, loud, sometimes vomiting. it is like the movie "risky business," but taking place on our sidewalk. i invite you to go to youtube. onn yelp.com, -- on yelp.com, they are encouraged to bring their own booze. they have to clean up vomit and ashes, and sometimes, the vomit
is purple color, no doubt from the hooka they are smoking. we have tried to work with the owner. he has been rude, as is also documented in the letters. total disrespect for the neighbors, and it has negatively impacted our life. thank you. director goldstein: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. my name is bob gordon, a member of the san francisco tobacco free coalition. i realize we are talking about a specific issue here, but i just want to put the issue in perspective, and that is overall, according to the centers for disease prevention and control, we are talking
about more people dying in the united states every year from tobacco-related -- more than from voter vehicles, homicide, suicide, -- more than from motor vehicles, homicide, suicide, and hiv combined. i want to share an article that was in "seinfeld daily -- "science daily" just last month. hooka use among a certain age group is rising rapidly according to the san diego school of medicine. now, the researchers say that the increased popularity of the hooka, a water pipe smoking tobacco -- there is a misguided belief that it is less harmful than cigarettes. most users reports smoking hooka
with friends, and this is according to an associate professor in the department of family and preventive medicine. according to him, the public interest cigarette smoking is banned in california, hooka use is allowed in some lounges, and this may create the impression that it is safer to cigarettes, which is not true. thank you. director goldstein: thank you. is there any other further public comment? seeing none, we will move in for rebuttal. you have three minutes. ms. viranyi. >> it is true that most of the customers that come there, they are young. we tend to have a lot of people under the age of 21 because they
cannot go to the bars. we do not allow alcohol. occasionally -- we do not allow alcohol. in the beginning, when we first opened, we were misinformed. we thought people could bring in things, over 21, but we were informed from the health department know, so that was completely stopped. -- informed from the health department no, so that was completely stopped. some people come in from the bars, so they have been already drinking. i have been there early in the morning. never have i seen vomit and cigarettes on the sidewalk. we have a cleaner that cleans always when we close, in the morning and in the afternoon. so i do not know anything about purple vomit. we hired from a security company a security guard for the weekends to try to keep the
young kids in line. they are looking for a place to go where they can socialize and listen to music. perhaps the main reason they come to us is not really to smoked -- smoke hooka. that is a misconception. they come in to listen to music, and they find an affordable. i would say of our customers, perhaps only 20% are true hooka smokers. the rest are those who want a place to go with no alcohol per minute. thank you. director goldstein: thank you. any rebuttal from the department? >> i will be brief. this is a unique situation, because oftentimes, appellants
will come before the board and ask for more time to continue to operate before they sell to a different owner, or they work out some kind of financial arrangement to do something that save the business, and as they continue during the continuance period, they operate lawfully, and in this case, if you were to grant a continuance, what you would be doing is is aiding and abetting the violation of the health code, because she would be allowed to continue to sell tobacco on the premises so that kids could smoke. there is no other business that is going on here. i understand in some situations it may be appealing to allow an
appellant to continue for some time, but if you were to play this out, all this really does is allow the smoking to continue in a building where people live. i just don't think that there is anything in the equities in this case that suggest that not moving forward with the suspension -- there's nothing to suggest why that should not happen in this case. if you have any questions, that would be fine. i think this was a unique circumstance where, again, by allowing a continuance, she is just facilitating conduct that a number of the speakers have already said is harmful to the health of the tenants. commissioner garcia: i am assuming the lady next to you is your associate? >> she is. she is the senior inspector who did all the work in this case.
they have taken the steps to get them to stop. we have already requested and they have already been ordered to cease and desist. we would now like to take their permit a way so they cannot sell tobacco. yes, that is missed jimmy young, a senior inspector from the department of public health. commissioner garcia: my comment was going to be with lee, since she kind the to the time to come here this evening. perhaps she would like to take the time to make a few comments. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the senior health inspector for the environmental health. i have been assigned to help our businesses comply with the smoking ordinance since may,
2010. cairo nights, they get a notice to comply, which is simply a letter allowing them to understand the law is in effect and they needed to start working on creating a business model that would be in compliance with the law. cairo nights was one of the facilities that did not meet with me when the original letter went out in december of 2010. our office tried many times to do inspections, but their operations were stated at 4:00. we went on at 7:00 p.m. it was not until i was able to do in a time inspection when i was actually able to see the extent of the operations. when i saw the extent of the operations, i did indicate to them they were in violation of the law, and they met with me
even before we had our first abatement conference. when they met with me, we actually sat down at separate times. during those meetings, i did really try to get her to talk to me right here in city hall because they were aware how the businesses were going to be affected. they were trying to connect these with an agency that could help them develop a business model. katherine decided she could not go that route. i don't know if you have any other questions for me. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> i have a question. i am curious. this is sort of a tangential question. in this instance, it is alleged that the law was broken, and yet
there were multiple opportunities for either warning or some type of mitigation of what occurred. yet, with the mom-and-pop stings, there is no warning. there is no potential litigation. it is a strict penalty. i'm curious how the department justifies that. >> i would submit that there were warnings. in this case, the notice to comply was received back in december, indicating that no- smoking was permitted -- could be permitted on the premises,
given the new health code provisions, and the kind of dialogue kind of continued with cairo nights to encourage them to move into another type of -- >> my question was different than that. let it go. >> i generally like to try to answer questions. i was not making an effort to avoid it. >> my question had nothing to do with this case. >> ah. >> it had to do with why did this particular appellant get so many warnings and end up with a thursday's suspension? time and time again, we get mom- and-pop operations who are operating selling tobacco, and they have a sting based on one offense, and they did a suspension of their days. why is there so much warning here and so little in the other one, i think is the question.
president goh: typically that is because they're selling tobacco to a minor. different program. >> thank you. >> may i just -- >> your time is expired. without any further questions, the matter is submitted. >> comments, commissioners? >commissioner garcia: i absolutely appalled the department on this. absolutely sufficient notice was given to this operator. what bothers me the most about this particular case is the absolute lack of concern for the neighbors and their health issues and when ms. viranyi had
a chance to come up here, she did not say, i did not aware that was going on, i am so sorry to of those people. that is the real issue. some people were put into a perilous situation and it was ignored. >> i really have nothing further to add. this is a very straightforward case of a violation with no intention on the part of the appellant to mitigate the request for a delay. i have no interest in extending the continued violation. >> i agree with what has been said. is there emotion, commissioners? commissioner garcia: i would move that we upheld -- uphold the penalty imposed.
>> that is based on the violations of the health code set forth in the director's -- directors' decision? >> yes. >> call the roll on that, please. >> on that motion from the vice president to uphold this 30- suspension on the basis of the health code violation, as listed in the dph order. commissioner hwang: aye. commissioner fung: aye. >> the 30-day suspension is upheld on that basis. >> now we will go back to the regular calendar. >> we move to item 5a, a jurisdiction request. 23 belmont ave. it received a letter from susan
scannon, asking of the board take jurisdiction over the electrical permit, which was issued on march 8, 2011. the appeal period ended on march 23, 2011. the jurisdiction request was received on july 19, 2011. the permit-holders is chanter- cheung revoke will trust. we will start with the request or. >> i am the representative. this is in response to 23 belmont avenue. the homeowner i am representing lives around the corner at 176 edgewood ave. she would like to reopen the appeal process during which --
chiefly, the reason she was never notified. under the present permit application for solar panels, there is no neighborhood notification, as there is in any other exterior alterations to a building, and significantly in a historic district and building. she would like to reopen the appeal to have a chance to have her concerns addressed and met. at that time, if there was issue -- there was an opportunity to undergo questions about this, there could of the discussions leading to alternative positioning of the panel's that might be less impat
full to were home. i have -- i don't know if i'm doing it correctly. the photo shows looking for a middle level of her home on to the neighboring property. here is a floor above and below. so, this is the gist of the situation. and she was not afforded any notification. the appeal seems kind of meaningless because she was not given notification that she had an opportunity to even present any appeal to this electrical permit. that is really it. >> any questions, commissioners? president goh: thank you. we can hear from the permit holders now.
>> do we have a card? >> good evening. i live at 23 belmont ave. i want to thank the board and ms. scannon for allowing us to reschedule the hearing. i have a sick mother in london i had to go back for. first of all, thank you for that. i didn't have much to add to what i wrote in response to the request for jurisdiction other than just to basically repeat that my wife and i basically undertook the project to install solar panels to be environmentally friendly. if the contractor gets the math correct, we may break even in seven or nine years' time.
it was to be environmentally friendly to add the panels in the first place. i would like to cede a moment of my time to the contractor, please. >> i am a contractor involved. we are a solar contractor based in san francisco. i wrote a letter. thank you. we're the contractor under which the permit was pulled. we followed the department -- commissioner garcia: i am sorry. could we make that more readable? >> i have copies of the letter. commissioner garcia: that is great.
>> great. what i wanted to -- a permit was issued to us in march and we began work by installing the stanchions in may of 2001. the reason i give the time line is that ms. scannon suggested that the timing was done to obscure and basically to delay doing the work until after the permit. was over -- permit period was over. there was no intent to do that. i want to be clear that on july 19, actually, we have the inspection of the permit, and it was passed before mr. chanter received notice of the appeal, of the request for the appeal. finally, i would like to say that a ruling by the commission against this jurisdiction a
request is strongly supported by california law. california has on the books the california solar rights act, which is codified in section 7959. one of the health and safety code. it says you cannot refuse the issue of permanent unless there are health and safety considerations. we have followed every rule of dbi. there's a history of solar installations in the city and we believe it to be safe. it has been inspected by the electrical department. thank you. >> for me come at a boil down to whether or not sufficient notice was given. do you have any personal knowledge of what was involved? what was required? what was done? >> it is my understanding there is no neighborhood notice requirement for a solar electric permit. >> thank you. president goh: is there any
department or comment? -- departmental comment? >> the evening. just to confirm some information, the electrical permit that authorizes installation of the roof- mounted module was issued on march 8, 2011. there is a final inspection performed on july 19, 2011. it passed final inspection. to clarify, the department has a permit application that pertains to an electrical permit. one of the requirements is that roof-mounted solar pv installations that conform to the general requirements itemized on this form will not require building permit application, a plan review, or equipment such metal, and the contractor shall arrange a final inspection of the final system.
this was performed. thre was a -- there was a reroof permit completed on june 30, 2011. commissioner garcia: no note is required. the other issue has to do with the work that did not commence until the appeal period had expired. >> electrical permanent -- i'm not exactly sure the date when the work did commence. we do not have verification. we have date of issuance and a final inspection. commissioner garcia: general practice that when someone gets a permit, they cannot start until the appeal period has ended. >> that is correct. >> they can. they do so at their own risk. if an appeal was filed, there would